« March 2006 | Main | July 2006 »
June 30, 2006
A Friday Miscellany
The main story in most of the msm this morning concerns yesterday's by-elections in Bromley and Blaenau Gwent.
BBC - Labour and Tories suffer at polls
The Guardian - Labour suffers double blow in byelections
The Independent - By-election blows for Blair and Cameron
Now the Blaenau Gwent result was no real surprise, and Bromley provided the wake-up call to Cameron that many had been expecting.
More interesting though is the cockup made by the Department of Health in prematurely announcing further privatisation of the NHS.
The Guardian - £64bn NHS privatisation plan revealed
A secret plan to privatise an entire tier of the NHS in England was revealed prematurely yesterday when the Department of Health asked multinational firms to manage services worth up to £64bn.
The advertisement asked firms to show how they could benefit patients if they took over responsibility for buying healthcare from NHS hospitals, private clinics and charities. The plan would give private firms responsibility for deciding which treatments and services would be made available to patients - and whether NHS or private hospitals would provide them.
So the Primary Care Trusts would be reduced to contracting out the commisioning of service provision, rather than directly commisioning the services themselves. One problem with this is that it introduces another layer (at least) into an already difficult process, making communication and accountability even more complicated. Then there is the inherent assumption that savings will result from private sector economies of scale, a flawed assumption as the private companies have a legal obligation to maximise shareholder return. The consequence may well be a decrease in the quality of service provision as the private providers attempt to boost their profit. And as numerous PFI project cost overruns have shown, the Government has a poor track record in holding private suppliers to account.
Once again we have privatisation New Labour style, by the backdoor and in the guise of partnership, but privatisation all the same.
Meanwhile the Ministry of Defence seems determined to hang on to its biggest, most flashy and, above all, most useless toys. And if anyone tries to stop it, then it's going to take its bat and ball (or Trident Missiles) home.
The Herald - MoD under fire for snubbing nuclear inquiry
The Ministry of Defence will today come under fire from a parliamentary watchdog for refusing to take part in an inquiry into the future of Britain's nuclear deterrent.
So Blair and Brown want a debate but no vote, and the MoD doesn't even want a debate. Yet there are fundamental principles involved here, including our commitment to the NPT and whether we should be even consideration the expenditure of £25bn on a single, limited use weapons system.
If you really want to get involved in the Trident debate at the grassroots level then I'd recommend joining CND. You'll also gain access to a rich source of useful campaign material in addition to supporting an organisation commited to the global erdication of nuclear weapons.
Posted by Clive at 11:12 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 29, 2006
Crisis. What Crisis
The phrase of the day would appear to be Constitutional Crisis.
The Guardian - Judges spark 'constitutional crisis'
Judges have sparked a "constitutional crisis" by their decision to quash the government's control orders, the chair of the home affairs select committee claimed today.
Mr Denham told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "There is a constitutional crisis emerging here, I think, about the way in which the judges and the courts are approaching these issues.
The Guardian - MPs fear constitutional crisis in pension battle
The government risked sparking a constitutional crisis if it continued to refuse to pay compensation to 85,000 workers who lost their pensions when their companies went bust, MPs warned yesterday.
The committee chairman, Tony Wright, asked Mr Hutton why he had risked a constitutional crisis when he refused to agree with the ombudsman's findings. He said it was for the ombudsman to determine maladministration, not the government.
The dictionary definition of a constitutional crisis is a situation where the smooth operation of government breaks down as a consequence of different groups within government disagreeing on just which group retains soveriegnty in any given matter.
Now, in spite of the lack of a written constitution, the United Kingdom has had many such crises in the past, including
1215 - The Baron's Revolt - which resulted in the signing of Magna Carta by King John
1534 - Henry VIII breaks with Rome
1642 - Charles I raises the standard at Nottingham and the First English Civil War starts
1659 - Removal of Richard Cromwell by the Army, re-installing of the Rump Parliament, dissolution of the Rump
1688 - The Glorious Revolution
1909 - Dispute between the Commons and the Lords over the budget. Eventually resolved by the 1911 Parliament Act
1936 - Abidcation Crisis
Now the one thing these crises have in common is that they have predominantly been between Parliament and the Monarch regarding primacy of authority. The current "crises" are between Parliament and the Judiciary, and the real issue is that the Government wishes to avoid the consequence of its ill-considered actions and lack of attention to detail. The role of he Judiciary is to implement the law as defined by the Government and approved by Parliament. If the Government fails to do its job with sufficient attention to detail then it shouldn't complain when new laws fail to have the desired effect.
Indeed the current crisis affecting control orders is purely down to a conflict between two items of legislation introduced by this Government, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. If you consider that New Labour has introduced four anti-terror acts since 2000, it becomes obvious that this government isn't very good at defining workable and consistent laws.
Likewise the constitutional crisis surrounding failed pension schemes and government liability. Once again the government fails to consider the consequences of its actions and is taken to task.
The real constitutional crisis is the massive disconnect between the government and the governed, the increasing sense of disenfranchisment which has led to declining voter turnout and disillusionment with the political process. One of the outcomes of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was the Bill of Rights, although it is worth noting that the Bill effectively defined the relationship between government and governed in relation to the respective roles of Parliament and the Monarchy. At the moment, that's the best we have.
But what is really needed is a new Bill of Rights, though not Desperate Dave's illconsidered gimmick. Instead we need a Bill of Rights which clearly defines the relationship between Parliament and the People, effectively a written constitution. It should empower the population, not provide further opportunities for the Government to burden us with more oppressive and ill-made legislation.
Posted by Clive at 5:09 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
June 28, 2006
Who will rid me of this meddlesome judge?
Okay, so Henry II actually wanted rid of a meddlesome priest, one Thomas Becket, but I'm sure Tony Blair and John Reid feel the same way about Mr Justice Sullivan.
BBC - Judge quashes anti-terror orders
A key plank of the government's policy to combat terrorism has been thrown out by the High Court.
A senior judge has ruled that control orders made against six men are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Control Orders were introduced by Charles Clarke as part of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and were introduced after the House of Lords deemed powers specified under part 4 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to be incompatible with articles of the European Commission on Human Rights that relate to the right to liberty, and the right to freedom from discrimination.
The 2001 act in turn extended powers originally covered by the Terrorism Act 2000. And we mustn't forget the Terrorism Act 2006, which gained Royal Assent on 30th March 2006, and was not a direct response to the July attacks on London as new terrorism legislation had already been planned.
So in 6 years and 3 Home Secretaries, we've had 4 anti-terrorism acts which have between them attempted to introduce draconian powers of detention for those suspected of involvement in terrorism. And once again the European Convention on Human Rights has been used, justifiably, to overturn such powers.
So now the government must trot off to the Court of Appeal and try and get Mr Justice Sullivan's ruling overturned. It still strikes me as incredible that the government has been unable or incapable of producing a fair, equitable and just set of anti-terror laws after all this time. How Blair must grimace when he thinks back to 1998 when the Human Rights Act 1998 (which enshrined in law the rights contained in the European Convention) received Royal Assent.
Still, at least Blair is trying to work with the Act to some degree. David Cameron would rather scrap the Act and instead implement a British Bill of Rights.
The Guardian - Axe Human Rights Act, says Cameron
The Human Rights Act should be scrapped and replaced by a written Bill of Rights and Responsibilities for Britain, Conservative leader David Cameron has said.
Mr Cameron said existing human rights law was hindering the fight against crime and terrorism, while failing to protect ordinary people's civil liberties.
Now Cameron's ideas may well prove unworkable, muddled and dangerous, but they are no worse than this government's own Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill which in its original guise would have let government do almost anything it wanted. Maybe David just lacks the subtlety of Blair or perhaps he has decided that no Tory Home Secretary will be ritually humiliated in the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
The trouble is that now is not the best time to allow governments and wannabes to draw up fundamental guiding principles of Human Rights to be enshrined in law. We do indeed need a Bill of Rights and a written Constitution, but these documents are so important that they should not be left to politicians to write.
Menawhile, a round of applause, if you please, for the meddlesome Mr Justice Sullivan.
Posted by Clive at 4:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 27, 2006
How the revolution ends
“Every revolution ends by becoming either an oppressor or a heretic” - Albert Camus
In 1994 and subsequent years, the New Labour project was described as a revolution, and sometimes more specifically as Blair's Revolution. In fact some of the main architects of New Labour seemed more than a little attached to the word:
The Blair Revolution Revisited - Peter Mandelson
The Unfinished Revolution - Philip Gould
“The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.” - Hannah Arendt
“Most revolutionaries are potential Tories, because they imagine that everything can be put right by altering the shape of society; once that change is effected, as it sometimes is, they see no need for any other.” - George Orwell
It is now 12 years since the start of the revolution, and 9 years since the revolutaries took control of the government. And the revolution has indeed become both oppressive and heretical. Oppresive in terms of how New Labour will brook no dissent within its ranks, and heretical in terms of its sacrifice of socialist principles on the alter of wealth.
For example, and these are just two amongst too many to mention here:
The Telegraph - Heckler, 82, who dared called Straw a liar is held under terrorist law
The Guardian - No questions for Levy as MPs discuss cash for peerages row
The burning issue is just how Blair's revolution will end. Assuming either Brown or a Blairite were to become the next Prime Minister, then Blairism might well become the new orthodoxy, just as Thatcherism did in the 1980s. And indeed, so far has New Labour departed from the Left, and so desperate are the Conservatives to appeal to the electorate, that even a David Cameron lead Conservative Government might maintain a Blairite legacy.
"Every successful revolution puts on in time the robes of the tyrant it has deposed." - Barbara Tuchman
However, that is beginning to look more doubtful. With Blair bogged down in Iraq, Gordon Brown for a long time seemed the likely successor, partly as a consequence of his perceived good management of the economy (ignoring the pensions crisis, the mis-timed sale of our gold reserves and numerous other ill-considered fiscal policies), his position as John Smith's annointed successor, but above all because he wasn't a Blairite. Except the announcement in Brown's Mansion House speech of his commitment to a Trident replacement brought home to many in the Labour Party that perhaps he was more Blairite that at first thought.
The Guardian - Brown intervenes in Trident debate with backing for nuclear deterrent
Gordon Brown yesterday sprung a surprise - and asserted his growing authority as prime minister-in-waiting - by unexpectedly announcing that he is committed to ensuring Britain retains its independent nuclear deterrent, a move that could cost the taxpayer between £13bn and £25bn.
This immediately exposed the fault lines within the Labour Party, and may prove to be the defining moment in the end of the Blair Revolution. Certainly it drew a sharp response from the Left of the Party, and in this case Left should not be equated with the Loony Left of the 1980s.
The Scotsman - Brown sparks left-wing outrage with promise to replace Trident
Clare Short, the former development secretary who has been a high-profile supporter of Mr Brown, accused him of "disrespecting" the democratic process with his "outrageous" Mansion House speech on Wednesday night.
Trades union leaders, long regarded as reliable supporters of Mr Brown, also expressed unhappiness at the Chancellor's "long-term" commitment to an independent nuclear deterrent, something that could cost as much as £20 billion.
Criticism of Mr Brown's speech was not confined to the political left, however. The Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church in Scotland yesterday both firmly re-stated their opposition to nuclear weapons in response to Mr Brown's move.
These divisions are further exposed by the way Charles Clarke has struck out at both Tony Blair and John Reid, in a manner that would previously have been ruthlessly ridiculed or suppressed.
The Guardian - Clarke in scathing attack on Reid
Sacked Home Secretary Charles Clarke has launched a scathing attack on his successor John Reid.
In an interview with the BBC's Newsnight and News at Ten, Mr Clarke said that Mr Reid had been "fundamentally wrong" to say the Home Office was not fit for purpose. "The overall picture of a department not fit for purpose in any of the respects he described, I think, is and was fundamentally wrong," he said. "And I think John was wrong to use those descriptions as I told him before he gave evidence to the select committee."
BBC - Clarke's doubts on Blair's future
Tony Blair may not be able to recover his authority and leadership after recent damaging events, former Home Secretary Charles Clarke has said.
In a series of media interviews, Mr Clarke, previously a strong Blair ally, voiced his anger at being sacked.
Admitedly, Charles Clarke is no Geoffrey Howe, and Clarke was sacked wherea Howe departed on a matter of principle, but only time will tell if this is a moment akin to the 1st November 1990 when Geoffrey Howe's resignation speech effectively heralded the downfall of Margaret Thatcher. What is notable that New Labour can no longer appear to maintain the degree of control over sacked ministers that it used to. Compare Clarke's departure with those of Blunket, Mandelson, Byers, Kilfoyle, Morris et al for examples of how ministers went quietly, attaching no blame to the Labour leadership.
And therein lies the tragedy at the heart of New Labour. Blair and his revolutionaries were only able to move the Labour Party so far from its roots as a consequence of the divisive and destructive period where the Party was tearing itself apart. The result was a perception that all debate was bad when it challenged the leadership, and so a whole generation of Labour MPs became sheep, toeing the line. Any who rebelled were branded the "usual suspects" and treated as pariahs. But this rigid adherence to doctrine has brought the Labour Party to a point where it may, in likelihood, tear itself apart once again. Reform (as against reveloution) requires continual renewal to avoid the dangers of dogma and stagnation, criticism and debate are inherent aspects of renewal. By stifling such expressions, the Blairites may well have condemned the Labour Party to an eventual return to the wilderness, or at best limited periods in power (cf the period 1959 to 1979).
There is a solution though. Firstly Blair must state categorically when he will stand down. Secondly there must be no automatic hand-over to Gordon Brown. Thirdly, there must be an open, honest and accountable leadship contest, with emphasis on looking forward and not on making personal attacks on the other candidates. The Labour Party could benefit from taking some cues from last year's Conservative leadship contest, but with more substance from the candidates. Finally, all leadership candidates must accept that many of the changes in the Labour Party have been for the better, and that focus should be on the future direction of both the Country and the Party in a social context. That means an open and honest debate on nuclear weapons, welfare reform and the role (if any) of PFI to name just three areas of concern. It also means accepting that Clause IV is history and should remain so.
There is a chance to avoid a bloody conclusion to the Blair Revolution, but it is a slim one. And time is running out for the alternatives.
“Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy.” - Franz Kafka
Update: Chicken Yoghurt - trumpety-trump-trump-trump-trump
For this is what this wall-to-wall Clarkefest is all about. Having packed his trunk, he’s now packing heat. If it wasn’t about massaging his ego and trying to salvage his career then why gore John Reid and his (albeit nihilistic) attempt to clear up the mess left by Clarke and Blunkett?
And a roundup at Bloggerheads.
Posted by Clive at 10:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 23, 2006
Desperate Dave
Conservative leader David Cameron seems so desperate to be like Tony Blair that he is now beginning to sound like Blair.
BBC - Cameron backs Blair on Iraq war
On the issue of Iraq, he told Ross he supported Mr Blair's decision to go to war.
"The world has got smaller and we have to recognise that what happens in other countries has a bearing on us," he said.
Yup, he's right there. For example, without British troops being involved in the invasion of Iraq, and without such prominent support of the US by Britain, then quite possibly the 7/7 bombings in London might not have taken place.
He added: "You've got to do what you think is right even if it's unpopular, that's the only thing you can do."
That one is straight out of the Tony Blair Book of Patronising and Fatuous Statements. The reality is that you should do what the extant information suggests is the best course of action, taking in to consideration the opinions of relevant advisors, and bearing in mind the will of the public. Of course Cameron is misrepresenting Blair here anyway. As Blair has previously stated, he does what he believes is right, and there's a world of difference between belief and rational thought.
Mr Cameron also said the prime minister had made "some great steps" in foreign affairs, but said there was "more of a question mark" over domestic issues.
What great steps are these then? He's commited British military forces to more conflicts in 9 years than Margaret Thatcher did in 11. In fact more than in the entire 18 years of the previous Conservative government. What has Blair achieved in Sudan, in Europe, anywhere? If someone could give me a list of Blair's significant foreign policy successes I would be most appreciative, because I'm at a loss on this one.
The tragedy is that Cameron has attained leadership of the Conservatives at a time when they are ready and able to endorse change. Yet instead of taking them forward, he seems intent on turning them in to an imitation of New Labour, albeit with slight Blue and Green hints. If you're a Conservative supporter, don't expect a return to government with any substantial majority under this leader.
Posted by Clive at 11:42 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
June 22, 2006
Acts of Union
Or more realistically, acts of disunity.
Now the rivalry between Scotland and England goes back centuries, but was up and running as a consequence of Edward I treatment of Scotland after the death of Alexander III in 1268. The Darien fiasco and the subsequent acceptance of the Act of Union in 1707 didn't help matters.
So the rivalry between Scotland and England is understandable. But the introduction of the Scottish Excutive in 1999 was supposed to strengthen the bonds between the two nations. In fact it could be argued that with the failure of the Government to address the West Lothian question, along with the sheer number of Scottish persons holding significant power in the UK, that Scotland now wields undue influence over England. And the the rivalry seems exacerbated. Certainly, in 40 years I've never heard of attacks by Scots against people displaying the Cross of St George before:
The Independant - Scots 'racists' attack England football fans
The first [attack] happened in an Edinburgh park on Saturday when Hugo Clapshaw, seven,was punched in the head by a man aged between 24 and 30 who was wearing a Rangers top.
[The boy said] "It was maybe because I had an England shirt on. He told my dad I should be supporting Scotland, not England."
The second attack happened place on Tuesday before England's game with Sweden. Ian Smith, 41, a retired postman who has been living in Aberdeen for 12 years, was dragged from his car and beaten up.
Given the attitude of certain groups to issues of race and nationality, I suspect that we may well seen a return to the more extreme aspects of nationalism within the UK. Far from strengthening the Union, the illconsidered policies of the Government have potentially sowed the seeds for future disunity.
Posted by Clive at 11:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Man Who Would Be King
Sometimes, although not often, I feel a pang of sympathy for Gordon Brown. After all, the Granita Deal should have delivered more power and authority to John Smith's annointed successor than history shows to have been the case. Certainly Brown gained not only economic autonomy, but also widespread influence over welfare and social reform, but only two people will ever know for sure whether the ultimate prize was promised to Brown or not. And I doubt now whether Brown and Blair could agree on what was said back in June 1994.
In the early days of New Labour, the impression was that Blair would serve two terms and then hand over to Brown, but it has now become obvious that if Brown wants the prize, he is going to have to win it on his own merits. The Blairites will almost certainly do their utmost to prevent a Brown premiership, and the Left may well put their own candidate forward considering Brown too tainted by his years as Blair's chancellor.
But the biggest challenges to Brown's chances of become Prime Minister are of his own doing.
Firstly we have the ongoing pensions crisis during which Gordon and the Treasury have remained steadfast in their conviction that the problem lay with the pensions companies, business and in fact anyone other than themselves. But such denials may ring more hollow once the results of a FoI (Freedom of Information) Enquiry into Treasury Impact documents are known:
BBC - Brown faces pension 'raid' demand
Chancellor Gordon Brown has been ordered to reveal the secret forecasts he was given about the impact of his pensions "grab" in 1997.
Mr Brown was accused of mounting a "raid" on pension funds by removing tax credit on share dividends in 1997.
The Treasury was asked last year under freedom of information laws to publish the estimates given to ministers about the loss of revenue to pension funds to be published.
It was also asked to reveal how ministers had considered the impact of the losses, whether they thought about phasing in the changes and how they examined the possible long-term impact on pension funds.
But the Treasury turned down the request, saying officials' advice to ministers was exempt from freedom of information laws.
It is to be hoped that once the advice is published, we will be able to see whether Gordon was indeed "prudent" or actually playing fast and loose with our lives in retirement.
Then there is Iraq, a matter upon which Gordon has remained strangely silent. One can only assume that either Brown supported the war, he opposed the war but said nothing in an effort to let Blair hang himself, or he lacks any balls to speak out on such a significant matter. The tragedy is that, had he spoken out against invading Iraq, it is highly likely that a significant portion of the Labour Party would have rallied behind him and he might well be PM by now. As it is, he just appears happy to play his Machiavellian games whilst thousands of lives are lost.
There are other matters as well; his duplicitous manipulation of the University Tuition Fees debate and the Eccleston donation to name but two.
But last night was the final straw, the moment when it was confirmed that saving the Labour Party would not be achieved by just the removal of Blair, but would also hinge on stopping Brown from becoming leader.
BBC - Brown criticised over deterrent
In his Mansion House speech in the City of London, Mr Brown said Britain would show a "national purpose" in protecting its security.
"Strong in defence in fighting terrorism, upholding NATO, supporting our armed forces at home and abroad, and retaining our independent nuclear deterrent," he said.
The Guardian - Anger as Brown backs Trident move
Mr Brown's speech, in which he also voiced support for civil nuclear power plants, was widely seen as a sign of his determination to ensure that his expected move to 10 Downing Street is not portrayed as a return to Labour's left-leaning, anti-nuclear past.
So much for the promised debate.
BBC - Blair promises deterrent 'debate'
He told a committee of senior MPs there would be the "fullest possible" debate. The decision would be taken in a "more open way" than had happened previously.
It is now apparent that New Labour intends replacing one white elephant with an even paler beast. When Trident was commisioned there was at least some tenuous justification for an independant nuclear deterrent although even then the arguments in favour of deterrence were looking threadbare. But in today's world? Just who the hell does Brown think a Trident replacement will deter? Certainly not any terrorist organisation. And America's massive nuclear arsenal hasn't deterred North Korea or Iran from pushing ahead with weapons programs.
This matter has nothing to do with national security, nothing to do with using state finances wisely, nothing to do with making the world a safer place. This is politics at its most unpalatable. This is Brown standing up and saying "Look at me, I'm hard!". This is Brown pulling Blair's balls out of the fire. Again. Above all, this is a betrayal by New Labour.
This just confirms what I have suspected for some time now; that Gordon Brown must not become Labour Leader or Prime Minister. His time was 1992, when he chose not to stand against John Smith, or 1994 when he deferred to Tony Blair. His time has passed and talk of a Brown premiership should be consigned to future counterfactuals.
Posted by Clive at 9:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 20, 2006
The Silver Ring's the Thing
I've blogged about the Silver Ring Thing before, a long time ago in heady late spring of 2004.
Silver Ring Thing is playing a dangerous game with the health and wellbeing of teenagers, wrapping an evangelical recruitment drive in health terms. It would appear that the real message is "Follow our way and be saved. Ignore it and be lost", where "lost" equates to suffering the health consequences of HIV and other STDs and the social and mental consequences of unwanted teen-pregnancy. Adoption of an abstinence-only approach will actually have proven negative effects, and will do nothing to reduce our ever-increasing teen-pregnancy rates.
I even went so far as to write to the Archbishop of Canterbury expressing my concerns, though without any reply.
In June I highlighted the problems Silver Ring Thing were having with their crusadetour.
The UK Today - Silver Ring Thing
What is needed now is a more realistic and open approach to both sex education and contraception. Firstly we need to accept that young people are going to experiment with sex, as generations before have done. In which case, we should try and ensure that young people today are equipped with the knowledge to practice safe sex, and thus avoid the risks of both unwanted preganancy and infection by sexually transmitted diseases. My sincere hope is that this tour is a resounding failure, and that Silver Ring Thing departs these shores, taking its dangerous dogma with it.
Unfortunately, it would appear that Silver Ring Thing actually met with some degree of success, in so far as some teenagers are now having problems when wearing their ignorance naivety purity rings in school.
Schoolgirls are forced to take off chastity rings - or be ordered out of lessons
It is only a band of silver, imprinted with a Bible verse, worn by a schoolgirl.
But the decision by one of the country's top state schools to ban American-style 'purity rings' - increasingly worn by Christian teenagers to symbolise a pledge not to have sex before marriage - has prompted not just a standoff with local parents, but a debate over religious expression and sex education.
Heather and Philip Playfoot have spent almost two years in dispute with Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex, over their 15-year-old daughter Lydia's ring. While the school's uniform rules forbid jewellery, they argue that the rings - given to teenagers who complete a controversial evangelical church course preaching sexual abstinence - hold genuine religious significance.
'The ring is a reminder to them of the promise they have made, much the same as a wedding ring is an outward sign of an inward promise,' said Heather Playfoot.
Well I hate to disillusion Mrs Playfoot, but there are a couple of points that need to be made:
1. The Silver Purity Ring is not an acknowledged religeous symbol and to demand its acceptance is about as justifiable as allowing someone to wear the Scientology Cross in school. Silver Ring Thing is more of an evangelical cult than a mainstream religeous body, and its symbols should be treated as such.
2. A wedding ring is not a symbol of an inward promise. I can only assume that Miss Playfoot has never attended a wedding, or didn't pay attention to the service. All that stuff that the bride and groom say? That's a public i.e. outward promise of commitment to each other.
3. There are times and circumstances when it is inappropriate to wear a wedding ring for health and safety reasons. I don't bitch about it, as it doesn't change my commitment to my wife.
But poor Miss Playfoot needs to open her eyes:
Lydia has now stopped wearing the ring in school. 'It makes me feel quite upset and angry as well, and in a way betrayed a little, because the school are always teaching us to be safe and we are trying to stand up for something,' she told The Observer.
There is nothing in the Silver Ring Thing teaching that encourages safety. In fact its message of abstinance could potentially leave teenagers ignorant of the risks of unprotected sex. Thankfully the national curriculum does include lessons on sex education, covering legal and health aspects, so the Playfoots (or is that Playfeet?) should be thankful that their daughter is receiving necessary information in addition to the naive and dogmatic outpourings of Silver Ring Thing.
Now, I'm Vice Chair of the Board of Governors at a local Anglican primary school. We have a school uniform policy, we have a religeous inclusion policy, in fact as a consequence of DfES requirements, we have a policy for nearly every single aspect of school life. Our policy on school uniform precludes certain types of jewelery and the Purity Ring would be caught by it. And I would argue that banning the wearing of the Purity Ring is a) our right as an independant body and b) not in contravention of our religeous inclusion policy.
Silver Ring Thing promotes a highly suspect doctrine, in a manner that is almost cult-like. To try and use legislation in the manner suggested in the article would be to set a dangerous precedent, and I would give my whoelhearted support to the governors of Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex
Posted by Clive at 1:13 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
June 19, 2006
Angry, frightened or confused
Or maybe a combination of all three. Just like Justin over at Chicken Yoghurt, I don't really know what to make of the announcement in the News of the World that there are two hostels in the South Yorkshire area that have been granted approval to house child abusers. In one respect I am in a slightly better position, as I know where the two hostels are as a consequence of a child protection role I carry out on a voluntary basis. But that's no real help, as the mobility of the individual using public or private transport makes the abuser's place of residence irrelevant to a degree.
Personally I think John Reid's jumping on the media bandwagon to be a classic demonstration of a desperate man in an unpopular government, looking for any opportunity to make both himself and the party look good in the eyes of the public. Pity he has such a short memory that he has forgotten the consequences of previous News of the World outbursts less than five years ago:
BBC - A paper's controversial campaign
An innocent man, Iain Armstrong, was beaten up by a mob in Manchester after being mistaken for one of the pictured paedophiles - apparently because he wore a neck-brace which looked like one worn to the man in the News of the World's picture.
There was a similar case in Norwich, and a celebrated incident when an entirely innocent South Wales paediatrician was attacked after confusion over the meaning of the word.
At the time, the News of the World dropped the campaign claiming that the Government had promised to implement "Sarah's Law", a claim subsequently denied by Government minister Paul Boateng.
The best thing about the list of hostels published in the News of the World is that the hostels have only been approved by the Home Office to house child abusers. That does not mean that they are actually housing the aforementioned child abusers, or have any intention of housing them.
Update: 11:56 - More over at Bloggerheads - John Reid is a gutless thug
Posted by Clive at 11:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 16, 2006
Ha!
BBC - Heald insists Tories are not bust
The Conservatives are "not bust", said frontbencher Oliver Heald in evidence to an anti-sleaze watchdog probe.
He should have added "At least not financially."
BBC - Blears denies Labour cash crisis
Labour party chairman Hazel Blears has denied Labour faces financial crisis after a report that backers want loans worth millions returned.
Maybe not financially in crisis, but let's not forget leadership, public confidence and morality, areas to which the word "crisis" could be applied.
Posted by Clive at 3:24 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
June 15, 2006
From the Student Union Bar
Back in 1994, once I'd come to terms with John Smith's death, I started to pay attention to Blair, especially as it became more and more apparent that he was going to be the next leader of the Labour Party and, in all likelihood, Prime Minister.
At first a lot of his pronouncements lacked substance, but I was prepared to cut the guy some slack as he was new to the job. Yet, as the final years in opposition progressed it seemed that, excluding economic policy, a lot of the ideas being put forward for a Labour government were lacking in substance. In fact I probably bored a lot of people back in the late 1990's by continually referring to many Labour policies as having more than a hint of the Student Union Bar about them.
A brief bit of explanaition for those of you not aquainted with Student Union Bars. First picture a run-down, 60's or 70's concrete structure with shabby interior decor. Now fill it with a large number of young people drinking cheap booze in copious quantities. These students will naturally fall in to seperate groups, including the pissheads, sport freaks, intellectuals and activists, and pseuds.
The pseuds were an interesting bunch, claiming a superiority over all but the true intellectuals, yet claiming a closeness to the common man that they reckoned the real intellectuals and activists lacked. Basically a bunch of prats who had never read Marx or Paine, and who not only missed the satire and comment in Gulliver's Travels, but were unaware of any of Swift's other writings. Generally they would spend evenings smoking Gitanes, drinking cheap beer (not lager) and discussing madcap schemes to reform the House of Lords, restructure the NHS and introduce conherent integrated transport policies to name but three. The one thing all these "bright ideas" had in common is that they were totally unworkable, being based on alcohol-fuelled ignorance and enthusiasm.
Anway, back to the original thread. It appeared that many New Labour policies had more than a hint of the Union Bar about them. But these were mature adults uttering these policies. Surely they'd outgrown the juvenile aspects of student politics, gained experience of the real world and put behind them such ill considered schemes. Apparently not.
While researching a history of the Labour Party, Robert Taylor unearthed a 1982 letter from Tony Blair, then a failed Labour candidate in the Beaonsfield byelection, to Michael Foot. Details regarding the letter can be found in the New Statesman this week. And it shows that far from despising the left of the party, Blair once firmly espoused its principles:
Blair goes on to praise Tony Benn, the leading voice of the left and thorn in Foot's side. "In one sense he is quite right in saying that the right wing of the party is politically bankrupt. Socialism ultimately must appeal to the better minds of the people. You cannot do that if you are tainted overmuch with a pragmatic period in power. The phrases that rouse us, or should rouse us, are bound to seem stale in the mouth of anyone who has been too closely intertwined with the establishment. It may not be fair but it is true."
It also shows how he once believed in the primacy of Parliament:
"No one has an inalienable right, irrespective of their political views or actions, to belong to the Labour Party. We have a constitution and we have firm principles upon which that constitution is founded. Those principles are the achievement of socialism and the achievement of it by the Party through Parliament . . . There should not be a party within a party."
Taylor sums up the letter thusly:
It shows a rather gauche, excitable young man on the brink of what was to be a stellar political career. Critics might also argue that it exposes an empty mind, rather than an open spirit in search of knowledge of socialism and the Labour Party. It shows just how late Blair came to an understanding of politics. There is a strangely adolescent feeling to what he writes, suggesting a man who wants desperately to impress his leader.
The letter brings back not only a nostalgic reminder of that unlamented lost world of Labour, but why so many people found Tony Blair so attractive, electing him their leader in 1994. In 1982, in that remarkable letter, he spelled out a credible vision for the British left. It is his personal tragedy, as well as the tragedy of the Labour Party, that the ambitious idealist was transformed into an authoritarian and hubristic machine that destroyed the ethical values of a Labour movement he once claimed to hold so dear.
I would also add my own summation. The letter reveals a fickle-minded individual who holds to no real political beliefs, a man in awe of power and authority (both perceived and real) and a person who appears prone to Damascene revelations. In writing this letter, Blair reveals why he is wholly unsuited to high political office, yet also explains how such an individual could achieve public popularity. At some point, someone should sit down and write a biography of Blair, with emphasis on his political meanderings and sycophancy, written as a warning to all political parties to beware of the shallow man with the false smile and no beliefs.
Posted by Clive at 11:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 14, 2006
You were warned
With all the hulabaloo surrounding Prescott and the various travails of the Home Office, the Party Loans scandal has been pushed into the background. Which is a shame as the story that the Electoral Commission warned the parties about accepting loans hasn't had the profile it deserves.
BBC - Poll watchdog warned about loans
Elections watchdog chief Sam Younger says he did not know about the scale of secret loans used by Labour and the Conservatives in the last election.
He said he had warned the parties that using loans to get around funding rules would breach the spirit of the law.
Mr Younger was giving evidence to an inquiry into the state of democracy.
Which only goes to show the degree of contempt the major parties have for the principles and standards of democracy.
Posted by Clive at 10:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
What return on investment
Waay back in 2003, during one of its many "Tough on crime" frenzies, this government introduced the Asset Recovery Agency in order to seperate criminals from their ill-gotten gains. The ARA promotes itself under the slogan "Making sure that crime doesn't pay". Great idea in principle and certainly one that received almost unanimous public support.
Fast forward three years and it would appear that not only does crime continue to pay, but so does the poor bloody taxpayer.
According to the ARA's website,
Our progress against targets over 2004/05 has been marked by notable successes and important learning points:
• disruption of 35 criminal enterprises – 36 disrupted;
• adoption of a further 35 cases – 51 adopted; and
• early restraint of assets to the value of £15 million – £17 million of assets under early restraint
We have also learned much from our experience over the past two years, in particular regarding the timescales over which we can expect our cases to progress.
The impact of the legal challenges, whilst necessary for developing the case law essential to new legislation, has delayed the progress of our cases in the High Court, which has had an adverse impact on the KPIs from the latter stages of the civil recovery process:
• obtain Recovery Orders and issue tax assessments to the value of at least £15 million –
over £5.6 million in Orders granted; and
• realise receipts in civil and tax to the value of £10 million – over £4.7 million in receipts collected.
Looks good, doesn't it? All those millions of pounds being mentioned makes you think the ARA are clawing back vast sums from criminals to fill the public coffers. But look closer and the picture isn't so rosey; "Orders granted", "under early restraint" don't actually refer to monies reclaimed, but rather cases before the courts.
In fact the ARA has only recovered £8million since it was set up in 2003, yet in the same period it has cost the tax payer some £60million according to figures released by the Home Office;
BBC - Assets Recovery Agency 'failing'
The Asset Recovery Agency was set up to tackle organised crime. It was meant to raise enough cash to cover its budget.
Tory Grant Shapps obtained figures from the Home Office showing in the ARA cost four times what it recovered in 2005.
When the ARA was launched with the power to seize criminals cars and cash Tony Blair said the agency was going to hit big time crooks hard - "where it most hurts in their pockets".
In 2004 the agency recovered vehicles worth just £5,000 - that was despite a 50% increase in its staff.
Mr Shapps added that by Mr Blair's own benchmark at the time of the launch the agency should have recovered £80m.
Now the ARA claims that while it hasn't recovered a significant amount of criminal money, it has had a significantly disruptive effect on crime. So far it has resulted in £68.45million of criminal assets being frozen by the courts, though the use of Human Rights legislation means that a large percentage of the frozen assets will eventually be returned to the criminal (or used to pay their legal fees). And that £68.45million is still short of Blair' original £80million target.
One can but hope that eventually the ARA will become self-funding, but I suspect such a time is a long way off if indeed it ever happens.
Posted by Clive at 1:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 13, 2006
And the point is?
Does anyone know what the purposes of academic qualifications are these days? When I was passing through this country's educational system (state rather than private), you sat GCE O Levels or CSEs at 16, then if you were so inclined, A Levels at 18 (typically 3 though very rarely 4) and then went off to Univesity or Polytechnic to study a relevant HND or Degree if your chosen vocation so warranted.
The O-Level and A-Level courses were predominantly exam-based, the exception (for me) being A Level Electronics where there was a small element (15% of total marks) dependant on a project. Likewise when it came to studying for a degree, throughout the three years marks were given for coursework, but the majority were allocated to exam results.
Over subsequent years there has been an increasing move towards coursework, with exams carrying fewer marks than before. This change was based on the idea that exams penalised students who suffered from exam nerves, illness at the time of the exam and that basically it was unfair to base a students grades on their performance on one particular day in spite of having studied for three or more years.
All very laudable sentiments, and so coursework gained in influence. Then came the growth in access to the internet and claims of internet plaigarism becoming commonplace in submitted coursework. Which has now gone a step further:
Reuters - Cheating students using Web to buy coursework
"What we have identified is a new type of cheating where students put their coursework out to tender and suppliers bid to complete the work," said Dr Thomas Lancaster of the University of Central England in Birmingham.
So first the jobs were outsourced, and now the actual courswork is being outsourced too. And even more scary is the idea that modern students would rather spend their money on buying coursework rather than blowing it all on alcohol, a concept that would have been an anathema to my generation of students.
There are three ways of dealing with this problem;
1 - Ignore it.
2 - Reduce the value of coursework.
3 - Incorporate an oral defense of submitted coursework.
So far it would seem that the approach adopted is 1, though whether through ignorance or pennypinching is open to question.
But even exams aren't a foolproof method of assessment:
The Sunday Times - Never mind the mistakes, examiners told
GCSE examiners are being told to ignore mistakes in pupils’ scripts to push resulting grades as high as possible. The instructions also tell examiners never to reduce a mark “solely because of the existence of an error”.
The policy is contained in a marking scheme for history issued by the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA), one of three exam boards that set GCSEs.
Now all this may be great for the students who can parade their excellent results, and great for the schools, colleges and universities who can crow about their performance, and brilliant for Education Secretaries who can bang on about government successes in education. But what about the poor bloody employer who has to try an find quality candidates?
The problem is that education in this country has become so bound up in governmental dogma that a "one size fits all" approach is seen as goodness. No student should fail, everyone should have the opportunity to go to university. Unfortunately that isn't the way things are in reality. Some people are better than others at academic subjects; some are so poor that they won't be able to reach an acceptable standard; many who now go to university are suited to the demands of a three year degree course. And dumbing down the degree courses isn't the answer.
We all have individual talents, and what both society and the education system should be doing is focussing on how to identify, enhance and value those talents. Which isn't that easy, and explains why there is such an emphasis on league tables and statistics. But the numbers-driven approach results in the system failing those who's talents lie outside the academic arena. Teachers don't put them forward for exams, lest their poor performance drag down the school's overall placement in the rankings. And dropping out of unsuitable degree courses after a year or so can just leave the student with an unwarranted sense of failure.
I had hoped that 1997's Blairite mantra of "Education, education, education" was going to address such issues, but instead the situation has worsened. So I'll restate my original question:
Does anyone know what the purposes of academic qualifications are these days?
Posted by Clive at 1:38 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
June 12, 2006
Who's running this show?
We all know just how good the material produced by our intelligence services is by the time it reaches the decision makers. It was this quality intelligence which led to the death of Jean Charles de Menezes. Now it would appear that a similar standard was applied to the intelligence given to the Metropolitan Police prior to the raid on a house in Forest Gate two weeks ago.
However, there is a difference this time.
The Observer - Yard told MI5 of terror tip doubt
Scotland Yard warned MI5 it had serious reservations about the credibility of the source whose information triggered the Forest Gate anti-terrorism raid only hours before police stormed the suspects' house in east London.
Whitehall sources told The Observer last night the reservations were passed up the chain of command to senior officials in the office of Sir Richard Mottram, the government's security and intelligence co-ordinator, but despite the concerns the police were ordered to go in.
So the Metropolitan Police were ordered to go in. In spite of concerns over the quality of the intelligence. In spite of a spate of raids based on flawed intelligence which have done nothing other than to alienate a segement of society that we should be engaging with.
Now the order to proceed came from the Cabinet Office, so the motivation behind the raid needs to be questioned. Rather than public safety, it would seem that the motivation may well have been political, that the raid must go ahead to prove to the public that they are at risk, thus justifying the Government's anti-terror measures.
But just as the flawed and misused intelligence which led us into Iraq had the effect of exposing us to a greater risk of reprisals, so this latest cock-up will only serve to further inflame the situation.
Posted by Clive at 11:50 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack